Time: Tue Nov 04 16:22:58 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA24596;
	Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:16:16 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA28412;
	Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:13:32 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd028372; Tue Nov  4 16:13:26 1997
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:13:50 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: willful failure to file [sic]

Yes, there is a distinction between no liability,
and liability of zero.  A "taxpayer" is one who
is subject to any internal revenue tax.  Since
there is no liability statute for the taxes
imposed by Subtitle A (except for withholding
agents), there can be no liability on anyone
who does not volunteer via a valid W-4 Employee's
Withholding Allowance Certificate.  A zero liability
would be the net tax owed after all deductions are
subtracted from the gross taxable income, producing
a net taxable income.  This latter amount might
result in a liability of "zero" for any given
taxable year.  You might be involved in alcohol,
tobacco, and/or firearms, for example;  or 
petroleum distribution.  In these latter cases,
you would become a taxpayer, because you would
be involved in an excise-taxable activity, and
therefore you would be subject to these internal
revenue taxes.  

Does this help?

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com



At 11:53 AM 11/4/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Paul, is the following logic in error,not withstanding citizenship:
>
>1) joe is charged with willful failure to file.
>
>2) joe has not filed a return because he believes he isn't required.
>
>3) joe has not consented for the IRS to assess a tax.
>
>result)
>
>since joe has not assessed himself, and since the IRS has not assessed him,
>there is no tax liability.
>that is, the amount of the tax liability as assessed is equal to zero.
>therefore, the facts acquit joe of any wrong doing.
>
>this is an effort to circumvent the lack of a liability statute making joe
>liable, if the judge decides that there is a liability statute but will not
>produce it, ask how much is joe's tax liability?  since no tax has been
>assessed, the liability is zero, which is less than the minimum filing
>requirement.
>
>ta da.
>
>is there a distinction between no liability and a liability of zero?
>
>meanwhile, as joe sits in jail. . .
>
<snip>

===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13

      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail